The Symphony after 1945

[3rd Viennese School]

Did anyone hear Saturday’s Music Matters show? I taped it and listened to it on Monday night as it’s a subject I’m really interested in. Here’s a few scattered thoughts from 3VS.

A very good show. Opened with extracts from Berio, Shostakovich 10, Schnittke 1 and Henze 9.

Even had Maxwell Davies talking about symphonies- I’ve heard all of them- but haven’t got no.3 or 4. He says they require a long concentrated listening for several times. But this can be done even in these times. I achieve this by taking the personal stereo with me on the train. And on holidays. I’m learning Schnittke Symphony no.2 at the moment.


Good to hear David Matthews on it as well.
Not sure about one of the panel saying that she’s looking at works for symphony orchestra rather than symphonies because symphonies are abstract works.

“ I’m not sure the symphony will survive because of modern techniques that are available” Guess who said that? Schnittke! (Symphony no.3 programme note)

The dodgy unfinished completed symphonies are still being done on to this day! (Schnittke 9)

Of course, there’s so much ground to cover from 1945 to now and so many diverse approaches to symphonies we really need a whole series of programmes to cover this!

Does anyone know if James McMillan is writing a 4th symphony? And what happened to Pendereki 6? (Pendereki wasn’t mentioned on the programme)

So, after Maxwell Davies 3 and 4 where next for my contemporary symphonic exploration?

3VS

[Chris Newman]

Of course, there’s so much ground to cover from 1945 to now and so many diverse approaches to symphonies we really need a whole series of programmes to cover this!

This is just the sort of thing that should be on TV in conjunction with Radio 3. Years ago Ivor Keys did an excellent series in the early days of BBC2 but a lot more symphonies have been written since then including some by Max, Gorecki, Shostakovich and Tippett and there are always new audiences. I seem to remember IK did a lot of the conducting himself.

[3rd Viennese School]

I have the Symphony Volume 2 book edited by Robert Simpson and I've always thought there should be a Volume 3.

The book goes up to the 1960s, up to Shostakovich Symphony no.12 and says that Ives Symphony no.4 which apparantly may exist should be left as a hidden undiscovered symphony!

Interesting that Robert Simpson doesnt include Stravinsky Symphonies as these are "ballet" works!

I wonder if there will be a Henze 11.... theres so much more to come and think about!

And Max 9 is about the Queen- how will that work? I've heard nos 1-8- very difficult but rewarding. Royalty is last thing that springs to mind when I am listening to these!

3VS

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Of the works written since, say, the 1960s, the that most excite and interest me have not fro the most part been written fro Symphony orchestras. The hostility of such ensembles to New Music, contrasted with the enthusiasm shown by smaller forces, may be mainly responsible for this (the NYPO deliberately sabotaging Cage's Atlas Eclipticalis and vandalising the microphones that were the composer's own property is an extreme example).

There are still many astonishing works being written for orchestra, but relatively few of these are "symphonic", or carry the title "Symphony". Ferneyhough, Birtwistle, Barrett, Lachenmann, Rebecca Saunders, Sciarrino ... all my "favourite" living composers have written truly remarkable orchestral pieces, and there are many other examples, too, from Saariaho, Lindberg, Payne, Finnissy, Sawer, Ades et al. that all avoid the genre.

The title carries a specific "weighting" with it that suggests that any composer using it is making a "political" point; identifying in varying ways with the Tradition(s) that formulated and developed the Symphony (with a capital "S") - either to usurp it (Carter's Symphony for Three Orchestras, Berio's Sinfonia) or to uphold it (Simpson, Tippett, Matthews). I like the works of all the composers I've mentioned, but find it interesting that the Symphony is no more the central form to living composers than the Fugue was to their 19th Century equivalents.

That it can still inspire composers (anyone for Julian Anderson's at 4.05?) says much for the "aura" of the genre - but, for me, those who have managed to create a valid Musical "grammar" that avoids symphonic traditions are far more interesting.

Best Wishes.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Anyone hear the Anderson Symphony? I thought it was a very good piece, in the line of succession (if it can be so naffly called!) of Sibelius #7 and the Lutoslawski #4 that preceded it on the programme. Good build up of texture to a sort of "imperfect cadence" interrupted by "Scherzando"-type writing, a well-wrought contrapuntal "working out" before a "victorious" conclusion: the narrative line was clear and the thematic control succesful.

But ... IMO, it very evidently looked over its shoulder at the Symphonic Tradition that preceded it in ways that 18th and early 19th Century symphonists (who were creating a new genre, rather than working with Historic expectations) didn't. For me, that's the flaw in almost all Symphonies written since the Second World War (with the exception of those composers who started their careers before it): they look backwards. Often to splendidly glorious effect, but I'm more enthusiastic about Music that isn't written in the Past Tense.

[ahinton]

The title carries a specific "weighting" with it that suggests that any composer using it is making a "political" point; identifying in varying ways with the Tradition(s) that formulated and developed the Symphony (with a capital "S") - either to usurp it (Carter's Symphony for Three Orchestras, Berio's Sinfonia) or to uphold it (Simpson, Tippett, Matthews).

Carter's work is actually entitled A Symphony of Three Orchestras, which might seem to imply a loosening of the customary symphonic bonds rather in the manner of the titling of Stravinsky's Symphonies of Wind Instruments - but what of the work that Carter didn't call Symphony No. 2 - or 3 - but Symphonia: Sum Fluxæ Pretium Spei? dating from 1993-96 and arguably one of the composer's finest and most ambitious works? I included reference to it in my response in a thread on this programme in another place, where I wrote the broadcast up as follows:

...rather too much of it neatly (and on ocasion rather less than neatly) crushed into soundbite-sized chunks (I nearly wrote press-[ganged] into Service but stopped myself in the nick of time) for the apparent sake of trying to push the programme inexorably onwards, the most - indeed perhaps the only - positive aspect of which was that the programme's outcome seemed to me to be the distinct impression that the subject deserved a whole series to itself. That the intrusions of the woman on the panel - one Shirley Apthorp - seemed largely bent upon pulling away from the subject of symphonies per se served only to waste valuable time that the programme already couldn't afford to waste. Kenyon certainly seemed to have done his homework, the contributions of Matthews and Max were worthwhile but painfully curtailed and Goehr's input rather puzzling to the extent of (a) its assertion that he wasn't sure if the three pieces in whose titles he'd included the word "symphony were "symphonies" at all and (b) its general impression of what he evidently sees as a relatively parlous future for the symphony when taken right alongside his old colleague Max's almost diametrically opposite view.

There was mere passing mention of the postwar American symphony, from which Carter's Symphonia was excluded and there was not even a single mention of Sessions.

Where a gentle bicycle ride with ample opportunities to observe every aspect of the landscape was desirable, what we had instead was the equivalent of a Chinese CRH380A ride, except that even this would at least have arrived at a destination.

In sum, then - a fascinating subject (indeed, perhaps surprisingly so) that nevertheless gave rise to a litany of missed opportunities, although it's not easy to figure out how it could have been improved (beyond the odd tweaks) in order to give it the treatement that it deserved.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Carter's work is actually entitled A Symphony of Three Orchestras, which might seem to imply a loosening of the customary symphonic bonds rather in the manner of the titling of Stravinsky's Symphonies of Wind Instruments

Quite so: careless of me.

- but what of the work that Carter didn't call Symphony No. 2 - or 3 - but Symphonia: Sum Fluxæ Pretium Spei? dating from 1993-96 and arguably one of the composer's finest and most ambitious works?

... and even more careless of me to overlook a work your high opinion of which I fully share. It is perhaps interesting (he wrote, back-pedalling furiously) that this Symphony emerged at least initially from works that Carter hadn't intended as "belonging" together, and whose symphonic "nature" (? "essence"?) he only gradually became aware of. The discovery (rather than the imposition) of Symphonic principles is perhaps what contributes to the work's success as a Symphony?

Best Wishes.

[Serial_Apologist]

I have the Symphony Volume 2 book edited by Robert Simpson and I've always thought there should be a Volume 3.

The book goes up to the 1960s, up to Shostakovich Symphony no.12 and says that Ives Symphony no.4 which apparantly may exist should be left as a hidden undiscovered symphony!

Interesting that Robert Simpson doesnt include Stravinsky Symphonies as these are "ballet" works!

I wonder if there will be a Henze 11.... theres so much more to come and think about!

And Max 9 is about the Queen- how will that work? I've heard nos 1-8- very difficult but rewarding. Royalty is last thing that springs to mind when I am listening to these!

3VS

I have that book too, 3rd - my copy now falling to pieces

Another category of symphony Simpson excluded was the atonal symphony. Iirc he actually cited Henze's symphonies in that light. I agree a follow up would have been interesting, including as doubtless it would have the wonderful symphonies of John McCabe, and probably having to take on board Maxwell Davies, given that MD refers to tonal relations, or at any rate tonal schemes within these works, but also given more ironically in view of the subtle change that overtook Simpson's view of tonality in his own later music, where he seemed to acquiesce to consonances and dissonances being considerable in more relative terms than those which had once concerned him in relation to his own music's relationship to Nielsen's attitude to tonality, namely as giving overall shape and sense of direction.

Listening, I have to admit, to Max's symphonies, I must confess to a certain "tone deafness" regarding his use of tonal centres - as indeed I did in the case of Henze's great 7th, where tonal relations were referred to in the interval discussion.

S-A

[DracoM]

Erm.............Robert Simpson?

[Byas'd Opinion]

It's a long time since I read the Simpson book, but wasn't one of his arguments that a symphony had, in some way, to involve a contrast between different keys or tonal centres, and that therefore you couldn't have an atonal symphony?

I'd agree with Ferneyhoughgeliebte that the symphony is no longer central to orchestral composition in the way it was, but that doesn't mean there haven't been good symphonies written since 1945.

Among the more traditionally-inclined composers I'd recommend the symphonies of K A Hartmann and Vagn Holmboe (like Shostakovich, Holmboe is both a pre-war and post-war composer: the first five of his 13 symphonies are pre-45).

Among the composers seeking ways of writing symphonies using a modernist vocabulary, some of the more interesting are the four by Lutoslawski (the 1st is an early work dating from the days when Polish composers weren't allowed to write anything that didn't conform to the dictates of Socialist Realism, but is still an enjoyable piece) and the seven by Per Norgård.

Radio Three used to play the symphonies of Robert(o) Gerhard a lot in the seventies: are they any good?